DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Susie Wiles | First Female Chief of Staff

Pat Summerall would be proud.

There’s your consolation prize ladies. I just watched a MAGAt youtuber laughing at American women over not having control of their own bodies. Ugly days ahead.

But hey, this woman got a promotion she’ll never be able to keep! So there’s a bonus.

Other than she led trump's campaign I really don't know much about her. I know she's very loyal to trump and that's what he's looking for in the people he plans to surround himself with but otherwise she's pretty much an unknown.

But wait a minute… didn’t the leftists want us to believe that Trump looks down upon women?


Keep it going MAGA KING! Glad to have you back!

He certainly has no problem of stripping them from their rights. It's strong independent women he has a problem with. Not trump loyalists.

MAGA KING...... That about says it all.

What specific rights have been stripped away? And of those, which were stripped specifically by Trump?

Trump said all along he would only appoint SCOTUS judges that would help overturn Roe. You know, a right women had that was constitutionally guaranteed. That's exactly what he did. Now in may states they no longer have that right due to the actions of trump. When did 2+2 become so complicated for some people?

Let me guess, are you trying to claim that trump was too stupid to know the consequences of own his actions? Is that it?

Where in the constitution is abortion guaranteed? Row was a horrible opinion, it was the very epitome of means end scrutiny and legislating from the bench, and should have never seen the light of day.

It was the law of the land for over 50 years until trump worked to help destroy it. Once again you seem to indicate your knowledge as a legal scholar. And you talk about outrage porn.

Separate but Equal was the law of the land longer than Roe was in effect. A bad decision is a bad decision.

Once you start your childish nonsense it seems you are actually done with real arguments.

Unless you're a legal scholar with some sort of credentials, your opinion is no different than any other schmuck. Even legal scholars don't agree about this but somehow you think you're qualified to know if this ruling was proper or not. Claiming you are the one with a "real argument" is hilarious!

You cannot argue the actual merits so you go to your children logical fallacies. Typical. RGB did say it was a bad decision and it scared her, but hey keep stomping as a form of debate.

And you're not qualified to argue the actual merits.............

Fact check: Trump makes wildly inaccurate claim that ‘all legal scholars’ on ‘both sides’ wanted Roe overturned

Former President Donald Trump has accurately boasted that he played a central role in getting the Supreme Court to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that guaranteed abortion rights across the country. But he keeps making wildly inaccurate claims that the court’s 2022 decision to rescind Roe had universal support.

In a video statement on abortion policy he posted on social media Monday, Trump said: “I was proudly the person responsible for the ending of something that all legal scholars, both sides, wanted and, in fact, demanded be ended: Roe v. Wade. They wanted it ended.” Later in his statement, Trump said that since “we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint,” states are free to determine their own abortion laws.

It wasn’t clear there whether Trump was using “everybody” to refer to legal scholars in particular or the American public. But in previous statements this year, he has broadly claimed that “everybody,” period, agreed the power to determine abortion law should be returned to individual states.

Facts First: Trump’s claim that “all legal scholars” wanted Roe overturned is not even close to true; many wanted Roe preserved, as several legal scholars reiterated in Monday comments to CNN. And Trump’s broader claims that “everybody” wanted states to be granted the power to determine abortion law are also false; opinion polls have consistently showed a large majority of Americans did not want Roe terminated.

Many legal scholars wanted Roe preserved

It’s not clear what percentage of “legal scholars” wanted Roe v. Wade overturned. Some of them certainly did.

But Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, claimed that “all” of them wanted Roe gone. A simple Google search shows that is untrue.

“Any claim that all legal scholars wanted Roe overturned is mind-numbingly false,” Rutgers Law School professor Kimberly Mutcherson, a legal scholar who supported the preservation of Roe, said Monday.

“Donald Trump’s claim is flatly incorrect,” said another legal scholar who did not want Roe overturned, Maya Manian, an American University law professor and faculty director of the university’s Health Law and Policy Program.

“Please make clear that the facts are the opposite of Trump’s claims,” said Yale Law School professor Reva Siegel, yet another legal scholar who wanted Roe preserved.

Trump’s claim is “obviously not” true, said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis who is an expert on the history of the US abortion debate. Ziegler, who also did not want Roe overturned, said in a Monday interview: “Most legal scholars probably track most Americans who didn’t want to overturn Roe. … It wasn’t as if legal scholars were somehow outliers.”

It is true that some legal scholars who support abortion rights wished that Roe had been written differently; the late liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was one of them. But Ziegler noted that although “there was a cottage industry of legal scholars kind of rewriting Roe – ‘what Roe should’ve said’ – that isn’t saying Roe should’ve been overturned. Those are very different things.”

Mutcherson said in an email: “Many of us have argued for decades that Roe was too narrow, and became even more so after Casey,” a 1992 Supreme Court decision on abortion rights, “so the call was to strengthen Roe, certainly not to overturn it and give states the power to deprive women of such a basic right of control over their bodies and futures.”

Manian said in an email: “Criticism of Roe from legal scholars supporting reproductive justice focused on expanding Roe’s protections, not overturning Roe. Reproductive justice scholars called for overturning the case upholding the Hyde Amendment (Harris v. McRae), which was an extremely narrow reading of Roe and narrow approach to constitutional protection for access to abortion. In other words, critics of Roe from the progressive side argued for expanding abortion rights beyond the floor set by the decision, not for overturning and eviscerating Roe.”

Most Americans wanted Roe preserved

Trump has gone well beyond claims about “legal scholars” supposedly being united in support for the decision to overturn Roe. He has repeatedly claimed that “everybody” agreed the matter of abortion law should be left up to each state, suggesting he was referring to the views of the American public.

In fact, poll after poll has shown that most Americans – two-thirds or nearly two-thirds of respondents in multiple polls – wish Roe would have been preserved.

For example, a CNN poll conducted by SSRS in July 2023 found 64% of adults opposed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe; that result was nearly identical to the result of a CNN poll conducted by SSRS in July 2022, the month after the decision. Similarly, a Marquette Law School poll in February 2024 found 67% of adults opposed the decision that overturned Roe.

A NBC News poll in June 2023 found 61% opposition among registered voters to the decision that overturned Roe. A Gallup poll in May 2023 found 61% of adults called the decision a bad thing.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/08/poli...roe-overturned-legal-scholars/index.html

Is that you Donald?

Let me know when you become a legal scholar who is actually qualified enough to have a legal opinion.

Perhaps you should read this, out loud, to yourself, keeping your OPINION in mind.

I mean, really. "Unless you are a legal scholar with some sort of credentials (which you are not), your OPINION is no different than any other schmuck" (like yours)

"Even legal scholars don't agree about this". (ok?) "Yet somehow you think you're qualified to know if this ruling was proper or not". Yet, here you are saying it wasn't?

I'm not the the one claiming to know the answer to that legal question. Franks is. Now let him know that. All I did was quote legal scholars who disagrees with his opinion.

Maybe if you tried reading a little slower it may help?

I'm no more qualified to give legal opinions than he is.

Try again arch.

And yet, you attempted (and failed) to show he was wrong and you were correct.

I'm honestly amazed at your posting. You "call out" others based on their opinion, and the only thing you give back is YOUR opinion.

No, your assertion was it was a "constitutional right" yet you've failed to produce the portion of the constitution that says such.

Have you even read Roe?

All I said was that trump said he would select only judges that would overturn Roe. And that he did that and they overturned Roe as a result. I said that Roe was the law of the land for over 50 years. all of that is factual. Can you show me anything else I claimed besides neither of us are qualified to give legal opinions on Roe? No you can't.

At this point you sound like a blithering idiot.


I'm amazed that you can't see I gave no opinion on the legislation at all other than it was law for over 50 years. That even qualified legal scholars do not agree on roe. Can you show me where I gave an opinion on whether Roe was good law or not? You can't because you're so blinded by hate you can't figure out it isn't there.

Good Lord man. Rant much?

And your argument, even though you're not qualified to give one is that your legal opinion is that Roe was bad legislation. But I understand why you want to shift away from that now.

And yet, I have listened to legal scholars that have said this. I have weighed what they said to add to the my reading of Roe and Dobbs.

You just said "orange man bad" as you entire reasoning.

Plessey was in effect for 58 years, according to you that is long enough that separate but equal is a good decision.

BTW, Row was not legislation, it was a SCOTUS decision. There is a difference, but I am sure you will tell me I am not qualified to know that.

I gave you quotes from legal scholars that disagree with your assertion. I'm sue you haven't considered any of their opinions. This isn't some open and shut case as it pertains to the opinion of legal scholars.

So are to trying to say that the SCOTUS isn't the body that establishes the final say on the legality and constitutionality which they codify into law?

You have an opinion. An opinion which is divided among legal scholars. I'm certainly not going to take the word of someone who is not qualified to make such a claim as "Row was a horrible opinion" pretend they are qualified to make such a flawed statement without pointing out they lack the the legal expertise to do so.

Which quotes were those?

Roe was bad as it was used bad logic.

Roe:

Given:
Abortion is legal.

Proof:
Women have a right to privacy with legal procedures.

Conclusion:
Abortion is legal.

This fails due to assuming the conclusion.

Pit, they’re in circle smirk mode giving each other a hand… why spin your wheels? Election is over, let them have what they voted for… all of it.

We’ll laugh last like always.

Then we should immediately castrate or kill any man who violates a woman against her will. Start with Trump. Or do you think he’ll protect your women from his rapey hands? Maybe you think he’ll stop being a pedo too. And a whole bunch of beta males put this curse on their own woman. Kill me first.

Your side wouldn’t like that either because you have too many Nick Fuentes’ and too many incels. Nope, they NEED to control women. Hopefully, some of your daughters. Then you can bounce little Nazis on your knees. Won’t that be special.

Give me the address to your law office in case I need legal advice in the future.



Which quotes were those? They're quotes from the article I posted above. But as per usual you at moat probably only looked at the first paragraph and ignored the rest of it.

So why no outrage over the voters who want the states to make their own choices? If the folks in Ohio or Tenn. don't want abortions on demand and they vote for folks who think like them, why should they be overruled and have their rights violated?

Why no outrage for Fathers who have NO rights when it comes to this subject.




WRONG they no longer have that right because the voters in their own state voted that way. That is the 2+2 that some people around here keep adding up to 12 bro.

Actually it has been their state legislatures that passed those laws. Not the voters. You know, mainly men who have no uterus trying to control the uterus of every woman in their state. When the people actually had the opportunity to vote on it things have turned out much different for the most part.

Even some red states that actually voted on abortion have voted to keep abortion legal in their states.

Once men have to carry a child to term and it give birth let me know. Once men face the fate of being neutered if they abandon that child or fall behind on their child support let me know. Until then they want to control women and think they should have a say when women don't even know if they'll be around for that child.

There have only been three states that actually voted to keep abortion illegal. And then often not illegal though the first term which is 12 weeks. Deep red Nebraska still voted to keep it legal for up to 12 weeks but not to expand it for more than 12 weeks.

Did you really think that when it was made illegal in these very restrictive states that it was the voters who decided that in all of those states bro?

Here is the break down on the states that have actually had an opportunity to vote on it............

Abortion-rights ballot measures pass in 7 states, fail in 3 others

Defeats in Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota ended an unbroken post-Roe ballot measure winning streak for reproductive rights advocates.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...s-pass-7-states-fail-3-others-rcna178718

So then what in the hell is the problem??? If people can vote in their own state, they can control who wins the elections, so bottom line is that each state can make abortion legal up to birth if that's what the people want.

Slavery was the law of the land. Just because something was the law of the land doesn't mean it stays that way if it was wrong. SCOTUS didn't ban abortion. They simply put it back in to the hands of the people at the state level.

Frank is right. Abortion should have never been a Federal issue in the first place.

Men arguing women’s rights. Pffft Men don’t deserve a say. They never have and they never will.

So...the rightS (with an S) that you claim were taken away by Trump is simply and only abortion...which a woman can still get (so it wasn't taken away)...unlike a gas stove (which Kamala has in her often-remodeled house) or gas-powered car if Obama & Co had their way. Where would I go if I wanted a gas stove under that dictatorship? Canada?

Abortion as a constitutional right? Even the dissenting SC justices couldn't point to ANYTHING in said constitution that abortion would fit under...not that they ever do so anyway/otherwise.

Pssst...it takes a man AND a woman to create a pregnancy...just sayin'.

So a woman's rights depend on her geographic location? You brought up slavery yet they didn't leave the rights of black people to be free up to the states. But when it comes to the rights of women you claim it should be different. Maybe women want the same protection under the law as everyone else has in all 50 states. But no, we can't have that can we? And of course it's men on this board supporting that. People without a uterus.

OMG! Someone is trying to take away your gas stove!? Just wait until they try to take away your reproductive choices! Dear Lord.

And who is it that's trying to take away your ability to purchase car with a combustion engine again?

You're trying to compare things that never even happened to sates having the ability to actually take away a woman's reproductive rights. Sometimes I don't think people even comprehend what they're posting.

Let me know when men have to carry a child to term and give birth. It amazes me how people who have no uterus seem so hell bent on controlling the uterus of the people who do have one.

Yet not a peep about the baby with a uterus inside the woman who is killed.

Not a word about the fact that a fetus isn't viable until 24 weeks.

Got your medical degree did you?

You should not speak until you can demonstrate your professional expertise in the field. Being childish, such as yourself, is not the same as understanding medical science about children.